<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimnOfA725AFPx-bQ-FaAqgq770+mx1DFi2xxkyf@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
Nicholas Goodman-<br>
Here is a fallacy: the slippery slope.<br>
After reading <i>Attending Daedalus</i>, I thought Wright was
"eschewing the traditional religious interpretation" of the
Sun books because of his physicalist worldview (though I do
not know his worldview and he never announces it to my
knowledge). I'm a physicalist myself. If you had read Wright's
book you would see that he criticizes the religious readings
of Wolfe on the basis that those readers are religious.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think the Logician term for that is "tit for tat". And here is an
applicable opportunity to address the motives of a writer to
understand his text. It would be a valid refutation of Wright's
arguments to say that it is circular and that there is a reasonable
probability that it exemplifies what he attempts to debunk. That
would have been a good argument from the vantage of hindsight.<br>
<br>
u+16b9<br>
</body>
</html>